I have an insider source to Stanford's admission office. It doesn't make any difference, especially given the fact that it is impossible to write a school specific letter that actually doesn't sound like BS. recs that make a difference is the substance, not the form that one uses.

"A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting an functional for public use, must be unobtrusive, taking second place to the toal environment. Modern architects, plauged by egoism, have violated this precept. They hae let their strong personalities take over their work, producing buildings that are not functional for public use.

which one of the statements below follows logically from the statment in the passage?

I kinda eliminated everything and arrived at the correct answer, b)modern architects who let their strong personalities take over their work produce buildings that are unobtrusive." but the correct answer doesn't seem to be easily drawn from the stimulus... it seems to me like "inviting and functional use" are sufficient conditions and unobtrusive is the necessary condition. how can you infer from the fact that "modern architects, producing buildings thar are not functional for public use" get that the modern architect produce buildings that are not unobtrusive? That seems like a mistaken negative to me..It seems like the really old exams sometimes don't abide strictly by the necessary/sufficient rule..

trust me push back. I was scoring 167-169 2 weeks before the exams to the day before,"HOPING" to get into the 170 range on the actual day and ended up with a 165. it is unlikely to happen. I know you're tempted to get over with the exam, but trust me, extra prep is worth it. Normally, people expect a 3 point drop on the actual from average practice.

can someone explain this problem? the question seems to have the sufficient and necessary condition backwards, but then it does say "requirement."

"A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: it must accurately describe a large class of observation and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

The answer only works if you assume that the 2 requirements are the necessary condition. But the "if" clause makes me believe that those two, met together, are merely the sufficient condition.. (i.e. there can be other ways in which scientific theory can be a good theory). can someone please explain?

ahh! that makes sense. I misread it to mean that the latter half of the sentence was an independent premise. Just out of curiosity, how do I know when the latter half is derived from the first half and when they're not? it seems like it could have easily been a two independent premises.

Does anyone know the answer to Preptest 8 Section 1 (Logical Reasoning Question #9?) I think it's a typo... Kaplan's explanation and the Nova explanations are kinda funny cuz the Kaplan one says D is correct and Nova says C is correct, while having their own explanations to it... does anyone have the LSAC key, or mind clarifying the answer?